Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!mvb.saic.com!ncr-sd!ncrcae!opusc!mazurka!kenny From: kenny@mazurka.UUCP (Kenneth Yarnall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: So, how close is WB2.0 to a burn-in date? Message-ID: Date: 21 May 91 13:45:38 GMT References: <1991May20.170355.19033@coplex.uucp> Organization: Math Department, USC Lines: 48 > Well, time for the most frequently asked question as of late. Its >been over two months since I've seen this thread, so I though I >would ask. > > Does anyone at C= have *any* idea of how close Commodore is to reaching >a burn=in date to commit 2.0 to ROM? Well, the letter that my dealer received with the 2.03 update said (paraphrased) that 2.03 was the last revision that would be shipped before the ROMS were burned and distributed, which would occur "3rd quarter 1991." The letter also stated clearly that support for structured fonts would be added to the system for the ROM release. Is that explicit enough? Hey, they mentioned the year, and everything. :-) > The last I heard, someone at CA decided to add a couple of new >features to WB. I dont think features are what people want; what >people want is for software to actually *work* under 2.0. Until >it hits ROM, major software vendors wont take 2.0 seriously enough >to actually start *programming* under 2.0. What features? THe only thing I have heard that they are doing aside from structured font support (Which apparently is in the 2.04 release developers have) is fixing bugs. People keep making vague statements about software not working under 2.0 (except for one guy, who just listed a bunch of software that works fine), but never really backing these statements up. What doesn't work? To me, 2.03 seems to be the most stable OS ever released on the Amiga. > And just because a piece of software is listed in the "2.0 Complaint Hee. If a peice of software is labeled like this, ------^^^^^^^^^ you're right, it probably won't work... :+) >Software List", it doesnt mean it actually works under 2.0. Quite a >few pieces of software made to "work" under 2.0, simply doesn't. Until >2.0 hits ROM, they simply wont take the time or effort. Like what? What are you talking about? Sounds just a bit paranoid. >dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) -- Ken Yarnall /// kenny%mazurka@opusc.csd.scarolina.EDU Math Department, USC \\\/// yarnall@usceast.cs.scarolina.EDU Columbia, S.C. 29208 \\\/ (803)777-5218 "I'm not good in groups. It's hard to work in a group when you're omnipotent." - Q